Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

Hmmmmmmmmm... interesting.

Last edited by glitched on Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.

wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.

Paul Hastings' website lists 9 lawyers in the LA office that do IP.

That said, this example illustrates part of the problem with this. NALP and websites don't mean much of anything. If a partner handled a case or two twenty years ago that related to IP somehow they might well put "IP" as a practice area tag. Doesn't mean they do it on a daily basis at all.

I'll say up front that I, and many others, for the most part consider "IP litigation" to essentially mean patent litigation. Is there copyright and trademark litigation going on? Of course. Is a decent percentage of that work being done in LA? Yep. But search for "soft IP" on this forum or on any other law-related forum. Soft IP lit is a fraction, and a tiny one, of the jobs in the nebulous "IP litigation" category. Patent litigation is done out of NY, SF/SV, and DC in the highest quantities.

And I'll be frank, and I apologize for doing so, but you're below median. I know it's at NYU, but still...these jobs are highly sought after by people throughout the country with tiptop grades. Without relevant work experience, you will quite possibly struggle.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, puncture your dreams, etc. I just have seen a lot of people head in to OCI wanting to work on copyrights and trademarks and it's simply not that easy.

I'm studying for the bar so I can't compile much more "data" for you...that's up to you. But I am someone going into IP litigation at a v100 firm.

wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.

Paul Hastings' website lists 9 lawyers in the LA office that do IP.

That said, this example illustrates part of the problem with this. NALP and websites don't mean much of anything. If a partner handled a case or two twenty years ago that related to IP somehow they might well put "IP" as a practice area tag. Doesn't mean they do it on a daily basis at all.

I'll say up front that I, and many others, for the most part consider "IP litigation" to essentially mean patent litigation. Is there copyright and trademark litigation going on? Of course. Is a decent percentage of that work being done in LA? Yep. But search for "soft IP" on this forum or on any other law-related forum. Soft IP lit is a fraction, and a tiny one, of the jobs in the nebulous "IP litigation" category. Patent litigation is done out of NY, SF/SV, and DC in the highest quantities.

And I'll be frank, and I apologize for doing so, but you're below median. I know it's at NYU, but still...these jobs are highly sought after by people throughout the country with tiptop grades. Without relevant work experience, you will quite possibly struggle.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, puncture your dreams, etc. I just have seen a lot of people head in to OCI wanting to work on copyrights and trademarks and it's simply not that easy.

I'm studying for the bar so I can't compile much more "data" for you...that's up to you. But I am someone going into IP litigation at a v100 firm.

hmmm fair enough. So would you recommend that I move more of those bottom NY firms to the top? Or try and go through the OCI bidlist again? I researched most, if not all, of the firms on the list the OCI list and had a pretty big compilation. Are there any firms that stick out to you that I should definitely boost? Or that I should add/delete?

wiseowl wrote:But as he's just told you, that doesn't really matter. If you want IP lit, it isn't in LA outside of very limited entertainment law IP and places like Irell that you probably aren't getting.

Don't make the mistake others have of striking out because of zero flexibility. Like it or not, the jobs are in NY. Very few jobs in SF/SV period, and few in your interest areas in LA. Maybe look at OC/SD a little more if you want to compromise a bit.

Paul Hastings is an LA-based firm that you might consider if you really want to be in LA. Maybe put it higher?

Paul Hastings LA office contains zero IP lawyers (according to the NALP directory). I only added them because of the name recognition and the fact they have 1 tax partner.

Where did you get your information about LA firms being strongly non-IP? I mainly used the NALP directory (which I understand may not be perfect), and mainly chose firms with 5+ partners and 5+ attorneys doing IP litigation. I also looked at the firm's website at a few firms and see the number of attorneys doing IP litigation in the LA office. I did this blindly for every firm coming to our OCI in both LA, SF, SD and NY before ranking them. To make the ranks, I chose based on location, selectivity, firm size, and available slots. I mean, if you have contradictory data though, I'd like to see it. Haha this sounds like me getting really defensive (and I probably am) but I'm being quite genuine here - I would really like to see some data so I could make a good choice.

Paul Hastings' website lists 9 lawyers in the LA office that do IP.

That said, this example illustrates part of the problem with this. NALP and websites don't mean much of anything. If a partner handled a case or two twenty years ago that related to IP somehow they might well put "IP" as a practice area tag. Doesn't mean they do it on a daily basis at all.

I'll say up front that I, and many others, for the most part consider "IP litigation" to essentially mean patent litigation. Is there copyright and trademark litigation going on? Of course. Is a decent percentage of that work being done in LA? Yep. But search for "soft IP" on this forum or on any other law-related forum. Soft IP lit is a fraction, and a tiny one, of the jobs in the nebulous "IP litigation" category. Patent litigation is done out of NY, SF/SV, and DC in the highest quantities.

And I'll be frank, and I apologize for doing so, but you're below median. I know it's at NYU, but still...these jobs are highly sought after by people throughout the country with tiptop grades. Without relevant work experience, you will quite possibly struggle.

I'm really not trying to argue with you, puncture your dreams, etc. I just have seen a lot of people head in to OCI wanting to work on copyrights and trademarks and it's simply not that easy.

I'm studying for the bar so I can't compile much more "data" for you...that's up to you. But I am someone going into IP litigation at a v100 firm.

hmmm fair enough. So would you recommend that I move more of those bottom NY firms to the top? Or try and go through the OCI bidlist again? I researched most, if not all, of the firms on the list the OCI list and had a pretty big compilation. Are there any firms that stick out to you that I should definitely boost? Or that I should add/delete?

I'm still not clear on what you're actually pursuing. Are you trying for patent litigation or for copyright/TM litigation? Or are you trying for tax stuff?

A few things. First, if you're bidding on multiple markets, you shouldn't stack them like that, because you risk not getting any bids in one of them -- you should intersperse them again. Also, the sequence seems wrong, in that the NY firms you've listed towards the bottom will probably get snapped up first, while generally IP-only schedules are available with low bids. (You should consult with career services to figure out whether that's the case, but it's likely.) You also should put more SV offices in there to play up IP lit -- realizing you like Tax, but with that GPA, you may want to sell yourself more to IP lit just to get in the door to the best firm possible (and if you do well in 2L, then maybe try to get into another firm as a 3L with an offer in hand).

Generally, the firms are ok, witha few omissions, but you should rework the bid order, and also maybe substitute some OC, SD, and SV offices for LA offices, since LA offices tend to be more grade-sensitive & less excited about IP. Remember that in a lottery, your focus is on maximizing interview slots versus slotting in your own personal preferences.

sbalive wrote:A few things. First, if you're bidding on multiple markets, you shouldn't stack them like that, because you risk not getting any bids in one of them -- you should intersperse them again. Also, the sequence seems wrong, in that the NY firms you've listed towards the bottom will probably get snapped up first, while generally IP-only schedules are available with low bids. (You should consult with career services to figure out whether that's the case, but it's likely.) You also should put more SV offices in there to play up IP lit -- realizing you like Tax, but with that GPA, you may want to sell yourself more to IP lit just to get in the door to the best firm possible (and if you do well in 2L, then maybe try to get into another firm as a 3L with an offer in hand).

Generally, the firms are ok, witha few omissions, but you should rework the bid order, and also maybe substitute some OC, SD, and SV offices for LA offices, since LA offices tend to be more grade-sensitive & less excited about IP. Remember that in a lottery, your focus is on maximizing interview slots versus slotting in your own personal preferences.

I was thinking almost the same thing about the IP-schedule vs. bottom firms, but don't know how to really play that game. You think I should Sidley Austin LLP (IP Schedule) or Baker Botts to lower 20's? Sidley Austin LA IP would probably be my first choice far-reach firm so I really want a chance to interview there. Here is an updated list:

itbdvorm wrote:Try lobbing in your resume to Fross Zelnick (copyright/tm boutique in NYC) if things don't go well. You are bidding in a fairly scattered fashion so things frankly may not go great

Also Roberts and Holland should be on anyone's list if interested in tax

Can you explain what you mean by bidding fairly scattered and what can I do to fix this issue...?

Roberts & Holland has far too high of a GPA cutoff and it's not worth throwing a bid at them.

Most people have at least a target market or a target practice area (or some degree of complementariness between a couple). Your practice areas are widely divergent and so are your markets. You're better off taking a rifle approach than a shotgun.